Home » SCOTUS rules North Carolina redistricting motive was race, not politics

Comments

SCOTUS rules North Carolina redistricting motive was race, not politics — 7 Comments

  1. Big Maq:

    🙂

    You mean, it wasn’t the Scouts?

    Haste makes waste. Thanks, will fix.

  2. Hilarious – the Dems pushed for years to havedistricts mapped by race because they accused the Republicans of defining the districts so that black votes were diluted by white Republicans!

  3. Richard Saunders Says:
    May 22nd, 2017 at 4:56 pm
    Hilarious

    * * *
    Remember that the Democrat Party was for slavery before it was against it (with the caveat that they still support it under different names and with different players).

  4. Justice Thomas was the only justice in the two cases under question- today’s and Cromartie II in 2001- who was intellectually consistent. Thomas was the writer of the dissent in 2001, while the liberal bloc at that time along with O’Connor was the majority upholding essentially the same damned district with the same set of facts and outcomes. That majority decision of 2001, which the court today basically overturned, was joined by Ginsberg and Breyer at that time, and they have now flipped to the other side. Kennedy, at least, can claim to have been following the precedent set in 2001.

    Basically, Ginsberg and Breyer voted the way the Democrats wanted them to vote both times, which puts great dishonor on them, in my opinion.

    It will be very amusing to watch these majority minority districts vanish along with all the African American congresscritters who only hold office because of them. They will be replaced by white Democrats for the most part. I suspect, because of this problem, that it won’t make a lot of difference in overall support for one party or the other.

  5. Althouse has more:
    http://althouse.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/a-precedent-of-this-court-should-not-be.html

    From his dissent:
    “In a case such as this one . . . , the party attacking the legislatively drawn boundaries must show at the least that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles. That party must also show that those districting alternatives would have brought about significantly greater racial balance. Appellees failed to make any such showing here.” Id., at 258.”

    Ann continues:
    “This case came out 5-3 because Justice Gorsuch did not participate, and Justice Thomas concurred. Thomas’s concurrence sets him apart from the rest of the majority (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) because he thinks Cromartie II got it wrong and it’s “a welcome course correction” to “confine[] it to its particular facts.”

    The justices who voted for Cromartie II but now against should be considered intellectual whores for Democrats. See Yancy Ward in comments:

    “In 2001, which upheld the district on the same set of facts, the majority decision was the liberal bloc at that time plus Sandra Day O’Connor. Notably, that majority consisted of Ginsberg and Breyer. The dissent in that 2001 case was written by Thomas and joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Scalia.

    In today’s decision, you find Ginsberg and Breyer on the opposite side of the decision, Thomas on the same side, and Kennedy on the opposite side. Of those four, only Thomas gets kudos for intellectual consistency, but Kennedy can be given a pass for standing on precedent. Ginsberg and Breyer, however, are simply making the decision based on what the current Democratic Party now wants.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>